Two more M8 Samples

[Will_Perlis]

Shot as jpgs, 50mm f/1.4 wide open, not tweaked beyond whatever the camera defaults provide.

 

[Asher Kelman]

These are beyond magnificent!

I don't believe I have seen such looking images from a 35mm camera before.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

To add to the Thanksgiving feeling, here's another grabshot, with no processing except for adjusting the right side of the histogram as tad.

A jpg at 320 IS0 with tungston light, again 50, 1.4 Summilux.

No sharpening or any other such changes applied.

and the turkey was delicious! Now, by the way, that turkey was giving off IR light, but not, I guess near the wavelengths that we need worry about!

Well, I really don't know!

Asher

 

[Will_Perlis]

Asher,

Thank you. I'm not at all sure about "magnificent" but they appear to have (to my possibly deluded eye and mind) something of the Leica look, whatever that really is.

And your shot reminds me, I need some more turkey, the last dose is wearing off.

 

[Roger Lambert]

....but for now, my impression is that without reading the bad stuff, you would never realize any of it in 99% of your work if you shoot nature, cityscapes, faces or figures! The issue is certain reflecting synthetics mainly. Asher

Not to rain on the parade, as I am extremely interested in the concept M8, but after reading this following post at dpr of a set of "Chamber of Horrors" photographs captured by a single M8 owner, I was impressed by the sheer multitude and severity of artifacts rendered by the camera.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=20994597

While the intent of the author of the post was to emphasize his support of his M8 purchase, the photos he posted belied his statements, at least to me.

I had not seen examples of the "green blobs", streaking, or white balance problems before, but they were easily seen in the posted examples.

Additionally, the magenta white balance problem in the portrait of the man with cigarette was striking!

The other artifact which surprised me was the magenta shift of non-black color elements caused not by their inherent color spectrum, but rather by a commonly-found light source in their vincinity. ( The hot dog stand signs which were distorted by the output spectrum of a mere incandescent (?) light bulb).

Finally, whatever was going on with the indoor portrait of the woman was bizarre to say the least! It looked like a CF card read error, but evidently was not, unfortunately.

I fear for the success of this camera, to say nothing of its parent company. While the M8 can produce gorgeous results under the right conditions, it seems capable of truly horrific results under the wrong conditions. The problem is that, unless you yourself can see in the IR spectrum, how can you know whether you are shooting in such a "wrong" condition?

I do hope the fixes being recommended by Leica will be succesful and well-received.

It's just that after today, I realize that the problems are not just limited to black nylon bags appearing to be magenta.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

It's just that after today, I realize that the problems are not just limited to black nylon bags appearing to be magenta.

Of course it is more than that. IR false color occurs in natural scenes (foliage is white in an IR photo, so the green stuff comes out too light). It affects all sorts of fabrics, not only synthetic and not only black, but when the base color is black the excess red and blue channel signals are most evident. The example most relevant to event and wedding photographers is a picture of a wool tuxedo with purple silk lapels that appeared in a Leica-Camera_Users threead. There are claimed to be problems with skin color and blotchiness due to increased prominence given to blood flow close to the skin surface, although I haven't seen examples yet. Yet, most of the time it seems to be a harmless error.

The issue was given extra weight by Leica's incomprehensible effort to convince themselves and their customers that this was not a problem, only affecting a few materials and a few photographers. This, along with the heavy spin in all public statements (it's not a recall, it's an "upgrade"), makes me wonder who is running the show at Leica and whether they will really fix all the problems in the M8 and release truly great cameras in the future.

scott

 

[Asher Kelman]

Scott,

Yes, right now there's still a sobering feeling coming from the artifacts. It does dampen even the most avid enthusiasm. Taking images of natural things has been a pleasure so far. The rendering to Leica film users is something they claim to recognize. It appears to appear with the M8 photographs.

Good pictures have wowed me. "Magnificent" is an apt word! I stand by that.

However, you will find that my science background will be represented as much as my appreciation of magical esthetics. Ultimately we are all driven by a quest for a great user experience and stunning images under all conditions. If Leica delivers that, all this will be like lost luggage that mars a wonderful vacation but is forgotten when everything goes better than hoped for.

So expect an even attitude, even though I really believe that the M8 will prove to be worthy.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Not to rain on the parade, as I am extremely interested in the concept M8, but after reading this following post at dpr of a set of "Chamber of Horrors" photographs captured by a single M8 owner, I was impressed by the sheer multitude and severity of artifacts rendered by the camera.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1038&thread=20994597

While the intent of the author of the post was to emphasize his support of his M8 purchase, the photos he posted belied his statements, at least to me.

............I do hope the fixes being recommended by Leica will be succesful and well-received.

It's just that after today, I realize that the problems are not just limited to black nylon bags appearing to be magenta.

Roger,

Taking a more critical stand is fine and needed; No one should give shortcomings free ride. However, in balance, the writer you quoted was also using humor to express the dilemma of having a camera that can take a 100 wonderful shots then a bunch of totally disastrous ones. No one should gloss over that, of course.

My own interest is what the current potential for making magnificent pictures is. I want to see what can be done without the changes by Leica sing just profiles when needed.

The profiles used have been the C1 Epson RD1 rangefinder profile, some custom profiles by Jamie Roberts to name a few. Unfortunately, these may not deal with skin perfectly. For sure, earlier Kodak CCD sensors deliver, (in albeit other configurations as in the Kodak 14N and 14C models and their Proback) wonderful skin tones.

Gut Mancuso has presented his work with a picture of people in which skin and fabrics were challenging to get right. He tried combinations of an IR+UV blocking filter and the choice profiles used currently.

So I expect we have a little way to go before we know the true prognosis. I am willing to accept the assurance of Leica that their "upgrades" will solve the streaking, green blobs issues and the filter will do the rest! However, the world is harsher than that.

Asher

 

[Roger Lambert]

Hi Asher

I'll tell you one thing. The photographs that I have seen posted by M8 owners - I just viewed a few over at FM - are absolutely magnificent. I mean - amazing.

What is it? The lenses? The lack of an AA filter?

They are so smooth, so full of light! And the dynamic range really does seem to be exceptional - very broad-shouldered rolloff.

Now I can see why Leica owners want to concentrate on the positive, and not dwell on the negative!

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher

I'll tell you one thing. The photographs that I have seen posted by M8 owners - I just viewed a few over at FM - are absolutely magnificent. I mean - amazing.

What is it? The lenses? The lack of an AA filter?

They are so smooth, so full of light! And the dynamic range really does seem to be exceptional - very broad-shouldered rolloff.

Now I can see why Leica owners want to concentrate on the positive, and not dwell on the negative!

Hi Roger,

Asher

It appears that Leica Lenses are very well made. Craftsmen melt the glass every so often. It is a very expensive process. The process requires tremendous experience and technical expertise, something like making fine wines. I'm sure there are extra sprinkles of rare earth metals or whatever, that give the glass its special characteristics.

The benefit of the lenses is in the hands of photographers who can use the subtle gradients of light and shades that the lenses can record. Sean Reid describes lenses as "writing" which I first thought was like BMW talking of "appointments" in their cars instead of fittings. However, "writing", as it turns out, is a term needed, since the glass and the lens design and implementation define how the shading is put into a final image. IOW, there is a large difference between making a great image and forming an image 3 dimensionally in a 2 dimensional plane. It appears to me that this is something of what the Leica mystique is all about.

This finesse is valid when a photographer can relate to his or her subjects in such a way as to bring out further dimensions than the ordinary perfectly great cameras can achieve.

I have, unfortunately, needed to awaken unused but unforgotten judgments when handling a rangefinder. In this the M8 is a pleasure to hold and use.

The shape of the light distribution is partly inherent in the glass but here the implementation of the conversion of the charges built up in each sensel well to an analog voltage and hence to a distribution of shade defines the breadth and distribution of the light and the robustness of the file to further manipulation.

I am taken back by the apparent resilience of the Leica 8BIT files as delivered to further processing. I cannot imagine this would work or that it's the best approach, however as good as it is, it's impressive.

The challenge at this time is to have fully competent curves to allow all the capabilities referred to be elicited in a color image.

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi Asher

I'll tell you one thing. The photographs that I have seen posted by M8 owners - I just viewed a few over at FM - are absolutely magnificent. I mean - amazing.

What is it? The lenses? The lack of an AA filter?

They are so smooth, so full of light! And the dynamic range really does seem to be exceptional - very broad-shouldered rolloff.

Now I can see why Leica owners want to concentrate on the positive, and not dwell on the negative!

Hi Roger,

It appears that Leica Lenses are very well made. Craftsmen melt the glass every so often. It is a very expensive process. The process requires tremendous experience and technical expertise, something like making fine wines. I'm sure there are extra sprinkles of rare earth metals or whatever, that give the glass its special characteristics.

The benefit of the lenses is in the hands of photographers who can use the subtle gradients of light and shades that the lenses can record. Sean Reid describes lenses as "writing" which I first thought was like BMW talking of "appointments" in their cars instead of fittings. However, "writing", as it turns out, is a term needed, since the glass and the lens design and implementation define how the shading is put into a final image. IOW, there is a large difference between making a great image and forming an image 3 dimensionally in a 2 dimensional plane. It appears to me that this is something of what the Leica mystique is all about.

This finesse is valid when a photographer can relate to his or her subjects in such a way as to bring out further dimensions than the ordinary perfectly great cameras can achieve.

I have, unfortunately, needed to awaken unused but unforgotten judgments when handling a rangefinder. In this the M8 is a pleasure to hold and use.

The shape of the light distribution is partly inherent in the glass but here the implementation of the conversion of the charges built up in each sensel well to an analog voltage and hence to a distribution of shade defines the breadth and distribution of the light and the robustness of the file to further manipulation.

I am taken back by the apparent resilience of the Leica 8BIT files as delivered to further processing. I cannot imagine this would work or that it's the best approach, however as good as it is, it's impressive.

The challenge at this time is to have fully competent curves to allow all the capabilities referred to be elicited in a color image. Guys like Jamie Roberts are working hard at this. However, one needs Phase One and other color experts to be brought into this in a serious way. No doubt this is what will be presented in the coming months.

Asher

 

[Sean DeMerchant]

IR false color occurs in natural scenes (foliage is white in an IR photo, so the green stuff comes out too light).

I am going to disagree here. The color/distribution of frequencies of light reflected back by foliage tends to be red on a properly exposed color-IR The white is often blown highlights if I understand correctly. Albeit, I have never shot color-IR film, but I have looked at quite a few large format roll film aerial shots of it. My understanding is that such shots can yield significant detail about the health and maturity of vegetation.

With standard color-IR film my understanding was that the red emulsion is sensitive to near-IR, the green emulsion is sensitive to red, and the blue emulsion is sensitive to greenish tones. In practice, each emulsion is sensitive to various distributions of electromagnetic energy (photons various and sundry) and that there was/is significant overlap between them.

But the bright red color of new vegetation is in color-IR often associated with the turgor pressure in the vegetation (which somehow correlates with the physical structure of plants).

You can find an excellent example at:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/Images/LasVegas_TAS2000213_lrg.jpg

Note how how vibrantly red the green the fairways on the golf course to the left of the airport at the bottom center of the shot. This is a standard color infrared look on an image for vegetation. I suspect the example may be purely digital. More info at:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=16318

I would also associate the term false color with combining 3 or more different greyscale renditions of sensed data (near-IR, thermal, UV, R, G, B, ...) to create a color image (they had cool machines for combining 3 large format trannies into a single false color image before computers could handle this). When invisible light bleeds into a color image I would simply call it incorrect colors rather than false color which has

With digital rather than celluloid sensors the issue seems to be a more total (RGB) sensitivity to near-IR radiation. This is why Canon, Nikon, ... all put hot-mirrors inside their digital bodies (excepting the 20Da) to prevent the .

enjoy,

Sean

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

I don't think we disagree, but you were using false color in an accepted sense, the planned assignment of R, G, and B to well-chosen parts of the spectrum present in an image, while I meant the accidental use of the standard R,G,B curves to pick up IR as well as visible light.

scott

 

[Asher Kelman]

I was expecting the picture of our hot turkey out of the oven to be a weird color since the M8 lenses had no IR fliter!

However, it came out fine.

I think the IR flux is weird! I've seen more IR in some indirect natural light pictures with a black background than in my kitchen at night with a muxture of tungsten and fluorescent light!

I'll have to do careful test again but that, for sure surprised me!

This purple hue can be a black hole for time loss! Einstein missed the point here. It's not just matter that gets sucked into black holes, but time too!

Asher

 

[Will_Perlis]

I think the IR flux is weird

Asher,

That "weird" is an important observation. It's the unpredictability of the results that's perhaps more distressing than any particular defect. For the sort of street shooting I like to do the relative accuracies of colors aren't very important. However, I'd not like moire patterns to show up in clothing or backgrounds beyond extremely rarely because those patterns are a pain to get rid of. For wedding shooters, and especially those whose clients expect large numbers of pictures, blacks can't be turning magenta on a random basis, the time costs in repair (if possible) would become exorbitant.

It comes down to a tool doing what one expects it to do. An intelligent user of a tool can adapt to its stable characteristics, it's much, much more difficult to deal with unpredictable behavior. We don't see moire and IR and so can't predict. We can predict vignetting or edge softness after experience with a lens, those are constants.

I think we would see much the same concerns raised among various experienced practitioners of the arts if a paint dried to different colors on a random basis, an airbrush changed densities the same way, or a chisel bit into the sculptor's stone deeply or shallowly as the mood struck it.